It seems to me there are rival descriptions about what happened, but none of them have to do with Zimmerman passing up an opportunity to retreat. Either Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin and shot him down or Martin punched Zimmerman, had him on the ground — not standing, but lying — and he was hitting his head into the concrete. Who's describing a scenario in which Zimmerman wins or loses depending on whether there is a Stand Your Ground law on the books?

Why inject an inapplicable, controversial issue? To inflame passions? To skew judgment? To take any opportunity/nonopportunity to push your pet issue?

Pretty much the same dynamic with the Slinger homeowner who shot the intruder. DA determined that shooting was justified under Self-Defense laws. Also analyzed it under the Castle Doctrine law and came to the same conclusion. However, it has been spun as Wisconsin's first fatality under the Castle Doctrine law & there is a movement to repeal it.

I thought they brought it up because they mentioned having to convene a special hearing to see if the law applied, and if it could be used as a defense by Zimmerman. It sounded like they have the hearing on SYG first; if it is determined to apply, end of the road. If it is determined to not, then it goes forward?

NYT won't let me re-read the article, so I may have misinterpreted the gist, or missed something else. But, if I remember correctly, that actually sounds like a legit reason to bring up the law. I could be misremembering though.

I'd leave it for a lawyer to make the call....but to my understanding as a person who has had a gun permit in a state that doesn't have "stand your ground" - if a thug jumps you and you are in fear of your life....

I do believe you can "plug the thug" and it is legally defensible under the self-defense doctrine - which all 50 states have in their laws basically since they became states.

The progressive jews at the NY Times, however, have long held that only hero cops, security guards, personal bodyguards hired by wealthy Manhattanites, and lawbreaking criminals should be expected to have guns. So they hate castle doctrine and stand your ground provisions because both "encourage mere unqualified prole citizens to get guns".

"If you need security, hire a bodyguard or wait for the hero cops to come".

If Ms. Corey decided to file charges against Mr. Zimmerman, a judge must hold a special pretrial hearing under the Stand Your Ground law to determine whether Mr. Zimmerman’s actions fall within the protections afforded by the statute.

Nothing like a bunch of race hustlers begging a white Republican to help them out, huh?

The heart of the issue is summed up in your blogpost. If there is no prosecution, those who have invested their credibility in saying Zimmerman committed a crime can say "He got off on a technicality" rather than what seems to be the truth "He acted in clear self-defense."

"The castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" are two entirely different things, and neither defense is available to Zimmerman, as he definitely was not in his home, and he was acting as a "Neighborhood Watch" patrol.

The "stand your ground" law might have been available to Trayvon Martin if he had survived, and if there was a trial and the jury believed his story rather than Zimmerman's.

The NYT is just muddying the waters to keep the national narrative going, regardless of how the local story plays out.

The rest of the preferred narratives failed, so now they have to fall back on this. The left (i.e., the MSM) desparately needs something they can grasp on to as a win to validate their worldview. Much of their worldview shattered as the facts of the case emerged. This is with what they're left.

They did it to themselves. Instead of reporting the news (i.e., facts of the case), the MSM came up with a "narrative" to sell. Naturally, it's their preferred political narrative. They failed. Now they're trying to save some face (with whom is unclear).

The NYT is just muddying the waters to keep the national narrative going, regardless of how the local story plays out.

On the other hand, you know the narrative is falling apart because the White House re-election team quietly put the Obama hoodie back up to full price. You remember...the one they discounted right after the shooting?

"Uhhh...because he claimed self-defense...and self defense/no duty to retreat outside of the home (where the Castle Doctrine would have applied) is called "Stand your Ground" in Florida..."

Uhhh, yourself. There are websites where you'd be permanently banned for starting a comment like that.

But if you'd read the post, you'd see my point. There's no version of the story out there where failing to retreat is the question of fact. Either Z was the aggressor and took Martin down or Martin was the aggressor and Z was in a position where retreat wasn't an issue.

Can we just step back a second and remember why this became a nationwide news story? It isn't because somebody killed somebody. That happens all the time. At most that's local news. This became a big story because it was presented by the news media as one in which a white man shot and killed an unarmed black teenager without provocation and wasn't arrested. Now we know that the shooter says the black teenager attacked him and he shot him in self-defense. We now know the shooter was taken into custody and transported to the police station in handcuffs, presumably for interrogation. This is NOT the case the news media presented to us. It's not worthy of national attention. But the New York Times, like the rest of the major media, won't let it go, because they don't want to give up on the "narrative" they've created around it.

Landlord tenant disputes are notoriously acrimonious. That's because both sides have the territoral imperative working for them. This may be a case where both sides felt that their terrtory was being invaded and that they were justified in using force to repel it. Zimmerman's act of eyeballing Trayvon was far less aggressive than Trayvon's response (if punching Zimmeran was indeed his response), but they were both drawing from the same well spring of emotion......The left managed to successfully spin the assassination of Kennedy into an indictment of the gun culture in Texas rather than the act of a pro Castro activist. It's looking less and less like Zimmerman is guilty so they'll probably indict the Stand Your Ground law instead.

The job of a journalist is to report things quickly. Given a choice between accuracy and speed, speed has to win. A newspaper has deadlines that must be met.

Which is why the journalists tend to be reactive types and not deep thinkers. Historians have time to think; journalists don't.

So, journalists take shortcuts. One of the easiest shortcuts is to fit incoming data to predetermined narratives.

Now you could object that by now they've had time to think, and to reflect on what is known and what is not known. BUT, that ignores that they are journalists. And journalists tend not to be reflective people- it's just not what they do.

paminwi.....I worked for a company once where (from what I could tell), someone meant to send an email about his big drunken party to his "friends" distribution list. But instead sent it to "finance". Yes, several hundred people from Sr mgmt on down got invited to a drunkfest that will have several kegs of beer.

Cedarford, stop being a a parody of yourself===================1. Who owns the NY Times?2. Who sets the agenda and the various "narratives" at the NY Times - reporters must write by to remain employed - and the rest of the old media feed off of?

You cannot ignore who, in any organization, pulls the strings. Could be the Politburo, could be an owner like Bill Gates...could be the decades-long narratives and agendas the Sulzberger Family ensures the NY Times follows.

Just to watch liberals heads spin and explode....some rightwinger should blame the shooting on Hispanic immigration since Zimmerman is of Mexican decent.

I thought that his mother was Peruvian.

It seems rather notable how the various Latino advocacy groups have been silent on the way one of the people that they purport to represent has been targeted and treated over the shooting. You think at least one of them would make some obligatory comment calling for calm, letting the investigation proceed in an orderly manner, and condemning the bounty placed on the head of a Latino male and the harassment directed at his parents.

Hagar said: "The castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" are two entirely different things, and neither defense is available to Zimmerman, as he definitely was not in his home, and he was acting as a "Neighborhood Watch" patrol.

He wasn't on neighborhood watch at the time, in fact he was running errands when the incident occured.

Just to watch liberals heads spin and explode....some rightwinger should blame the shooting on Hispanic immigration since Zimmerman is of Mexican decent.

I thought that his mother was Peruvian.

It seems rather notable how the various Latino advocacy groups have been silent on the way one of the people that they purport to represent has been targeted and treated over the shooting. You think at least one of them would make some obligatory comment calling for calm, letting the investigation proceed in an orderly manner, and condemning the bounty placed on the head of a Latino male and the harassment directed at his parents.---------------------------------

For the purposes of this narrative Zimmerman is classified 'white'. On the other hand, if he were to be shot by a white, Episcopalian, Republican, he would be Hispanic.

Here's my theory: The people at the NYT are emotion driven idiots, who rarely think any issue through any further than what they believed at the age of 17. All well educated, sophisticated, well read and connected.

It's truly inspiring to know how little all that helps. It means anyone, regardless of finances, time or social situation can be smarter than a NYT reporter or editor. It takes just a few minutes to get some facts with an open mind, and poof - there you are.

It all depends on what we mean by aggressor. Does a man who has a gun on his hip stalking somebody on their way home who is talking on a cell phone count as aggressive behavior, or does turning around and standing up to that man who is stalking you and striking him with only a fist count as aggression? I suspect that if Martin had the gun and fired on Zimmerman, he would have been protected by the Stand Your Ground Law, and isn't that ironic?

@ Jay...What is so hard for you about understanding the differences between past, present and future tenses of the English language?

The autopsy report was kept secret.(past tense)The autopsy report is now being kept secret.( present tense),and The autopsy report will not be kept secret in the future, like the coming day of the hearing that may happen after all(future tense.)

Either Z was the aggressor and took Martin down or Martin was the aggressor and Z was in a position where retreat wasn't an issue.

And this is a vast oversimplification of the doctrine. If one of your students put such a glib statement on an exam, I'm sure you would (justifiably) fail him.

No matter how much you wish it was so, the facts of this case are not so cut and dried.

First of all, even if we accept the prevailing anonymous eyewitness accounts (that indeed M was on to of Z when M was shot), we only have Z's account of how they ended up on the ground (M cold-cocked and jumped on him). Now if the altercation did not develop as Z claims, then the stand your ground law is very relevant. Z may have had ample opportunity to retreat but believed that he had no responsibility to. We, and you, simply don't know, unless you believe that people potentially facing a long time in jail always tell the absolute truth.

"Does a man who has a gun on his hip stalking somebody on their way home who is talking on a cell phone count as aggressive behavior, or does turning around and standing up to that man who is stalking you and striking him with only a fist count as aggression?"

-- Yes, punching someone who has not directly threatened you and, when asked if he had a problem, backed off, is an act of aggression. As is continuing your attack after the threat has been neutralized (that is, beating his head into the concrete after knocking him down.

"Now if the altercation did not develop as Z claims, then the stand your ground law is very relevant."

-- No. Justifiable use of force can devlove into assault very quickly. Even if Martin were justified in the first punch, the repeated beating of Zimmerman's head against the ground is enough to say that Martin was no longer using a just application of force.

For example, if Zimmerman's first bullet had only wounded Martin, he would not be justified in taking a second shot, unless Martin still proved to be a threat.

Zimmerman was down and pinned; attempting to bash his head open is no longer defense -- it is assault (unless all the witnesses who saw it are wrong or lying). Zimmerman could be charged with something in that case, but it won't be murder.

Does a man who has a gun on his hip stalking somebody on their way home who is talking on a cell phone count as aggressive behavior, or does turning around and standing up to that man who is stalking you and striking him with only a fist count as aggression?

Not that your premise is biased at all. Just how long have you been beating your wife, RV?

Striking someone with a fist is a far greater act of a aggression than having a gun in a holster. Further, we can only assume, but if Zimmerman's version is correct and Martin attacked him (even assuming he was "standing up" to someone that was "stalking" him), it's highly unlikely Zimmerman's weapon was visible. I doubt Martin would have confronted and struck Zimmerman if the weapon was openly or sloppily carried. Otherwise we would have to add "stupid" to Martins as of yet unvetted list of characteristics.

I believe every report I've seen said that Zimmerman was carrying concealed, so I assume he was. It's possible when he reached for his cellphone, Martin thought he was reaching for a weapon? That's possible, I guess. But, that still just gets us "two hot-heads do something stupid" and no closer to a real answer.

According to Zimmerman, he only reached for his weapon when he was flat on his back and Martin was banging his head against the concrete walk. This seems reasonable since Martin would hardly have charged him if he knew Zimmerman had a gun.

The description of how the altercation started is only Zimmerman's story, but it is consistent with everything we now know about the two of them and how the incident unfolded. It is going to be hard for the Martin side to get around.

Even if Martin were justified in the first punch, the repeated beating of Zimmerman's head against the ground is enough to say that Martin was no longer using a just application of force.

And I would argue that, under these circumstances, as soon as Martin saw the gun he would had the right to use deadly force--including repeated beating of Zimmerman's head against the ground. If you are in a fight with someone who is carrying a gun, your life is in danger until that person is incapacitated or disarmed.

Besides the whole thread is premised on Althouse's assertion that the stand your ground law is completely irrelevant in this case. Arguing about who was the aggressor and when that person had the duty to retreat or at least avoid the use of deadly force involves examining Florida's stand your ground law.

If the NYT is mentioning SYG, they are intentionally misleading the public, don't understand the issues, or are misusing the term to cover the 2005 changes to the Florida statutes.

SYG is a modification of the "retreat doctrine", which determines when you need to retreat when faced with potential harm. The Florida SYG law (776.012 Use of force in defense of person)says that if you are somewhere legally, you have no duty to retreat. Pretty much that simple. Traditionally, and still in many states, you do have to retreat, or you lose recorse to the affirmative defense of self-defense.

None of that though is really relevant there. Instead, what is relevant is the portion of the statute titled: 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force. Under that statute, Zimmerman is immune from prosecution unless the state can show probable cause that he acted illegally in killing Martin (i.e. that the killing was not in legal self-defense) and immune from civil litigation (which is likely why the Martins are so hot to get Zimmerman bound over to trial - so they can sue for wrongful death).

As Ann points out, the SYG doctrine is irrelevant here, because we have two alternatives. Either Martin was the aggressor, and his being shot by Zimmerman either is or is not self-defense, or Zimmerman was the aggressor, and therefore self defense is not available as a defense.

The only place where SYG might have been applicable is if Martin had approached Zimmerman (or visa versa), and Zimmerman did not retreat. Then SYG would have said, fine, if Martin swings first, Zimmerman can still use a self-defense defense, even if he didn't retreat. But, if he was not given a chance to retreat, which would be the case if Martin surprised Zimmerman, then it is moot anyway.

And I would argue that, under these circumstances, as soon as Martin saw the gun he would had the right to use deadly force--including repeated beating of Zimmerman's head against the ground. If you are in a fight with someone who is carrying a gun, your life is in danger until that person is incapacitated or disarmed.

I do believe you can "plug the thug" and it is legally defensible under the self-defense doctrine.

You better not ever have to "plug a thug", because your blatant racism and shoot first, ask questions later attitude will come back to haunt you as I am sure the prosecutor (and wouldn't be ironic if it was a Black Jew) will use your posts here to demonstrate what a hate-filled racist jerk you are.

How so, under what you posited, Martin (for whatever reason) was initially justified in using force against Zimmerman. Why doesn't that use of force extend to doing what ever is necessary to stop Zimmerman from shooting him? Does the stand your ground law only apply to people carrying guns?

First of all, even if we accept the prevailing anonymous eyewitness accounts (that indeed M was on to of Z when M was shot), we only have Z's account of how they ended up on the ground (M cold-cocked and jumped on him). Now if the altercation did not develop as Z claims, then the stand your ground law is very relevant. Z may have had ample opportunity to retreat but believed that he had no responsibility to. We, and you, simply don't know, unless you believe that people potentially facing a long time in jail always tell the absolute truth.

So, what I hear you saying is that if Zimmerman were confronted, but not physically assaulted, by Martin, then absent the Florida SYG law, Zimmerman might not be able to use a self-defense defense.

And, yes, on LS exams, you get extra credit by making up possible conflicting alternatives, such as your hypothetical. But, here, there is no real evidence supporting your hypothetical, and even if there were, due to the way that the SYG statute works, the state would still have to show probable cause that Zimmerman illegally killed Martin before he could be arrested.

And I would argue that, under these circumstances, as soon as Martin saw the gun he would had the right to use deadly force--including repeated beating of Zimmerman's head against the ground. If you are in a fight with someone who is carrying a gun, your life is in danger until that person is incapacitated or disarmed.

This assumes that he saw the gun. There's now way to make that assertion. It's just as easy Martin was no longer using a just application of force. The truth is, neither of us know.

"According to Zimmerman's self-serving account. Nobody else (except Martin)--and probably not even Zimmerman--can known when the gun was seen by Martin."

-- If Martin saw the gun, and attacked anyway, that doesn't get the prosecution closer to a conviction. After all: Martin has to attack Zimmerman for the facts we have to add up. Or, we have to assume something we have no proof for happened -- which, I hear, juries don't like to do, since having to assume things implies that there is a doubt of a reasonable nature when all the other facts point the other way.

The prosecution could rally that Zimmerman attacked barehanded at first, starting the fight, then when bested, went for his gun. So, is that what you believe happened, or do you believe something else happened?

I do believe you can "plug the thug" and it is legally defensible under the self-defense doctrine.

You better not ever have to "plug a thug", because your blatant racism and shoot first, ask questions later attitude will come back to haunt you as I am sure the prosecutor (and wouldn't be ironic if it was a Black Jew) will use your posts here to demonstrate what a hate-filled racist jerk you are.-------------------------------

I'm pretty sure if any thug attacks someone with the mental attitude that one should plug thugs, it won't matter the race of their attacker. He won't suddenly decide to be carried by six instead of judged by twelve if it is a blond German doing the mugging.

If Martin saw the gun, and attacked anyway, that doesn't get the prosecution closer to a conviction.

Why not. I thought SYG meant no duty to retreat. If some shadowy figure with a gun (an Hispanic even!) was trailing him and acting suspiciously, then Martin had every right under the SYG law to defend his life with deadly force.

"Why not. I thought SYG meant no duty to retreat. If some shadowy figure with a gun (an Hispanic even!) was trailing him and acting suspiciously, then Martin had every right under the SYG law to defend his life with deadly force."

-- Not if the gun was holstered and, after confronting the man, the man made it clear he had no intention to fight and was withdrawing.

If, after confirming that the man means you no harm and is withdrawing, you attack anyway... you were not in jeopardy.

Read up on self-defense law. You can't just think someone means you harm; you need to be in danger. You can't plug a man across the street who has a knife and is yelling things at you, because he is not an immediate threat to you. Likewise, you can't kick a man when he is down.

Simply because you think Martin was a paranoid racist (for reasons I can't understand), doesn't mean he was -- and it doesn't give him the right to attack a man who has not threatened or made any intention to harm him.

Your best bet is to claim that Zimmerman is just a liar, but we have no proof, but let's hope the jury doesn't give a damn.

If some shadowy figure with a gun (an Hispanic even!) was trailing him and acting suspiciously

You've seen one to many nior movies, Freder. You're also relying on the testimony of the deceased, which is tough to get on a good day. Unless he said "Some guy with a gun is following me" to his girlfriend who just happened to be running a Qik app at the time, you're SOL.

In any case, real life experience dictates teenagers don't physically confront people they know to have guns. In order for it to work your way, Zimmerman had to be stalking him with his gun visible, then either drop it or hide it before striking Martin with his bare hands. As has already been asked, is this the theory you're ascribing to?

The point of this thread is that Florida's SYG law is irrelevant in this case. I am pointing out reasonable assumptions, not contradicted by the facts at hand, where the SYG law would be pertinent. This is meant to demonstrate that Althouse's criticism of the NYT article (on this specific point) is spurious.

Why is it my responsibility to denounce this. Are you under the mistaken belief that I am a member of the NBP or even know anyone who is a member. I hadn't even heard of the organization before this incident.

I demand that you denounce every stupid thing Cedarford says and everything published on Stormfront.

-- We know the gun was holstered, because if it was not, Martin would never have gotten on top of Zimmerman in the first place. Only one, or maybe two, shots were fired. Were Zimmerman's gun out, Martin would not have mounted him and proceeded to smash his head into the concrete. If his gun were out, the only way to injure the back of his head is to injure himself, get sucker punched, or decide to wrestle Martin and not use his gun. None of those are good situations for the prosecution, since all three show that Zimmerman did not want to use lethal force.

We believe Zimmerman was withdrawing, since he has injuries on the front and back of his head. We believe Zimmerman was withdrawing because he says so, and that, again, if he was not and had his gun out, Martin would not have gotten on top of him.

Martin's girlfriend's testimony only confirms for us that Martin approached Zimmerman (he asked him first why he was following him), and Zimmerman responded with a question. Then there was pushing. That does not synch up with Zimmerman's version.

Well, OK. If he injured himself, the reason that doesn't work, which I failed to explain, is that witnesses saw the fatal shot. He would have had to injure himself BEFORE meeting Martin, if his gun were out when they met. Unless he let Martin get the best of him, while his gun was out, allowed his head to be smacked into concrete multiple times, and then used his gun.

If anything, now that I re-read the girlfriend's comments, she says that Martin called out to Zimmerman first (at least, the first place I got my hands on says that.)

Which makes it even harder to believe Zimmerman engaged Martin. After all, Zimmerman could see that Martin was on his cellphone. Why would you attack someone who was going to have someone able to say: "I heard so and so get attacked and call for help."

Heck, when I used to get home late at night, I always called people on my cell phone I knew to be up so I was less likely to be attacked because there was light near me and I'd have someone who could corroborate the time of the attack, and testify to what I said when I was attacked.

"Well of course we have to assume Zimmerman is lying, or at least telling the version of the story that puts him in the best light."

-- No. You have to assume he is lying about everything after he hung up the phone. Martin cannot have attacked him first to win this case; Zimmerman needs to have manufactured his injury and tricked the witnesses into seeing Martin on top. Perhaps swapping jackets with the man during the scuffle to confuse who was on top.

Remember; Zimmerman is believable because much of what he says synchs up with witnesses. He has to have fooled them, fooled the camera at the police station into showing a gash on the back of his head, or been willing to kill himself by letting Martin inflict potentially massive head trauma, or doing it to himself.

Remember, if Martin had been able to get a few more pounds of force, it would not be a gash across the back of his head. We'd be talking fractures.

So, you pretty much have to go all in, call Zimmerman a liar, and explain how all the witness statements make sense. Then, you have to address the rest of the material evidence that we know of.

You can also say: "There are hidden facts we don't know yet that will prove my case," but in that case, meh.

roesch/voltaire said...It all depends on what we mean by aggressor. Does a man who has a gun on his hip stalking somebody on their way home who is talking on a cell phone count as aggressive behavior, or does turning around and standing up to that man who is stalking you and striking him with only a fist count as aggression? I suspect that if Martin had the gun and fired on Zimmerman, he would have been protected by the Stand Your Ground Law, and isn't that ironic

See, I can respect Traditional Guy. He's going all in with "There are things we don't know that can prove my case." That's a valid position to take; I can be proven wrong very easily if it turns out the witnesses don't really exist or were bribed, or were just wrong.

Peter: So, journalists take shortcuts. One of the easiest shortcuts is to fit incoming data to predetermined narratives.

You got that right. For a typical reporter there are only about 10 different stories. Everything else is details.

I sometimes imagine reporters sitting at a desk with 10 pigeonhole boxes in front of them. No matter what happens they manage to make the story fit into one of them. This story (like the Duke Lacrosse story) automatically went into the "racist-whites-attack-blameless- blacks" pigeonhole.

In a sense you have got to admire the simplicity of the system. You don't have to agonize over how to present the story. You simply go with the existing narrative, providing names and details as required. The story practically writes itself.

Peter: So, journalists take shortcuts. One of the easiest shortcuts is to fit incoming data to predetermined narratives.

You got that right. For a typical reporter there are only about 10 different stories. Everything else is details.

I sometimes imagine reporters sitting at a desk with 10 pigeonhole boxes in front of them. No matter what happens they manage to make the story fit into one of them. This story (like the Duke Lacrosse story) automatically went into the "racist-whites-attack-blameless- blacks" pigeonhole.

In a sense you have got to admire the simplicity of the system. You don't have to agonize over how to present the story. You simply go with the existing narrative, providing names and details as required. The story practically writes itself.

I am not a lawyer, but Althouse's point about the inapplicability of Florida's “stand your ground” law in the Zimmerman/Martin case seems quite apt. More particularly Dave Kopel (who is also a lawyer and law professor, at Denver University) agrees, as he writes in the (libertarian-leaning) legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy:

“Media coverage of Florida’s self-defense laws in recent weeks has often been very inaccurate. While some persons, particularly from the gun prohibition lobbies, have claimed that the Martin/Zimmerman case shows the danger of Florida’s ‘Stand your ground’ law, that law is legally irrelevant to case. So let’s take a look at what the Florida laws actually say.”

Read the whole thing.

See also this posting by blog founder, UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh.

Note too this case where a black man was convicted of murder for defending himself against an assault by a white racist who screamed at him “I’m going to stab you niggers” and attacked him, in a state lacking a “stand your ground” provision in the law. As a result, the black man could not defend himself against the racist assault, but rather had a “duty to retreat” (i.e., run away) and was sent to prison for murder when he did not.

What demagoguery? It was one paragraph in the whole story that explained the Florida law, and did it rather well. It is "lenient" because "It requires law enforcement officials to prove that a suspect did not act in self-defense, and sets the case on a slow track."

That is in contrast to long-established criminal law, which requires that the person claiming self-defense shall in fact prove it (remember "affirmative defenses" from those long-ago law school days?)

So the Florida law is in fact more "lenient" for a person claiming self-defense, and it is called the "Stand Your Ground" law because it does not require a person to retreat.

What on earth is wrong with explaining that? It's just decent reporting.

The only place where SYG might have been applicable is if Martin had approached Zimmerman (or visa versa), and Zimmerman did not retreat. Then SYG would have said, fine, if Martin swings first, Zimmerman can still use a self-defense defense, even if he didn't retreat. But, if he was not given a chance to retreat, which would be the case if Martin surprised Zimmerman, then it is moot anyway.

That's the point. WE DON'T KNOW THE FACTS. All speculation is pointless, and so is continuing the practice.

Oh please. This is /was NOT a breaking story. It was a week old before anyone decided that it needed national attention. Everyone had the time to treat this story properly, but the need to play to the racist meme trumped everything else. Pleading time constraints is just lazy. And if that is an accurate description of modern journalism, than more shame on that!

<-- We know the gun was holstered, because if it was not, Martin would never have gotten on top of Zimmerman in the first place. Only one, or maybe two, shots were fired. Were Zimmerman's gun out, Martin would not have mounted him and proceeded to smash his head into the concrete. If his gun were out, the only way to injure the back of his head is to injure himself, get sucker punched, or decide to wrestle Martin and not use his gun. None of those are good situations for the prosecution, since all three show that Zimmerman did not want to use lethal force.

All of that was just so much bullshit, as if you are the resident psychic. You don't know a damn thing about it. No one does yet.

You also don't know a thing about altercations. "We know the gun was holstered, because if it was not, Martin would never have gotten on top of Zimmerman in the first place."

We may not know it, but we can be pretty confident of it, because concealed-carry gun bears are not allowed to brandish their weapon without cause, or even reveal its presence, and Zimmerman would have gotten in considerable trouble had he drawn it before his life was in danger.

Ok Leslyn. Explain then, Zimmerman's gun is drawn. How does Martin over power him, get on top of him, and not secure his gun arm to commence the beating we know Zimmerman received?

That's how we know the gun was holstered. It is the only thing that makes sense. Martin's girlfriend doesn't here Martin scream, say anything about a gun; she hears him approach and ask why are you following me. Not: "Why do you have a gun?" "Why are you pointing that thing at me?"

So, explain to me, with the facts as we know them, how the gun was in any other position besides holstered and concealed.

I don't think anything these days is written to sell newspapers. Nobody buys a newspaper because of a headline they saw on the street. There are no newsboys shouting, “Read all about it, new racial outrage!” These stories are written to fit a predetermined narrative. It does not matter if it sells papers or not.

Also, remember, while explaining this, you have to also answer the following: 1) Zimmerman's injuries; 2) Witness reports of the scuffle; 3) Why Zimmerman didn't shoot earlier; 4) Why Martin did not seem to react to there being a gun involved while on the phone with his girlfriend.

If your situation cannot explain all those variables, then we have to go with the current set of facts we have: Zimmerman's gun was holstered and away (per his statements) when Martin confronted him/he confronted Martin.

It all depends on what we mean by aggressor. Does a man who has a gun on his hip stalking somebody on their way home who is talking on a cell phone count as aggressive behavior, or does turning around and standing up to that man who is stalking you and striking him with only a fist count as aggression? I suspect that if Martin had the gun and fired on Zimmerman, he would have been protected by the Stand Your Ground Law, and isn't that ironic.

As I have pointed out before, self-defense is somewhat like a dance. Most often the guy who swings (or shoots) first is the aggressor. The other party has a right of self-defense. There are exception - for example, if someone pulls out a gun and points it at you, then they are probably the aggressor. Keep in mind that this tracks closely to criminal law - the guy swinging at you is committing an assault, which he could be arrest for, when he connects. In the case of someone pointing a gun at you, it really depends on the circumstances. If he says, your money or your life, then that is a major felony, and he is the aggressor. But, if he says, don't come any closer, or I will shoot, then it may be part of self defense. It depends.

In any case, once someone assaults you, or makes a credible threat to assault you, which a reasonable person would see as such, then you can defend yourself. That may mean hitting back, and it may mean shooting them, if they put you in reasonable apprehension for your life or of major bodily injury.

But, self-defense is not unlimited. If someone swings at you, and you hit back, and ultimately knock him out, you cannot continue to hit him. Rather, you must stop when the threat is neutralized. If you don't, you become the aggressor, and the positions are reversed.

The aggressor can withdraw, but it has to be unequivocal. It should be obvious to a reasonable person. And, if he does, and his victim continues the fight, then the former victim becomes the aggressor.

There is one more facet - escalation. If one party is originally the aggressor, but it is not a deadly confrontation, and the non-aggressor does not have a reasonable fear of imminent death or major bodily harm, then he cannot escalate to the use of lethal force. If he does, or can reasonably believed by the other party to be doing so, then his potentially deadly force may not be lawful.

The place where deadly force comes in, is where the non-aggressor feels an imminent reasonable fear for his life or great bodily harm. Then, he can use deadly force to protect himself from the aggressor, and often, to protect others.

As should be obvious here, someone getting in your face, talking bad about your momma, or anything of the sort, doesn't excuse physical aggression. It is still a crime if you swing first. It still comes down to who swung first, Martin or Zimmerman, and whether the aggressor withdrew, switching roles. Unless, maybe, Zimmerman pulled his gun, pointed it at Martin, and made a credible threat of imminent death or great bodily injury, before either swung on the other. If Martin swung first, and didn't withdraw, then the only question is whether Zimmerman had a reasonable apprehension of imminent death or great bodily injury to use deadly force. And, if Zimmerman swung first, then he may still be ok, if he can show that he had a reasonable apprehension of imminent death or great bodily injury AND Martin had not put him in that apprehension as a result of his unlawful actions.

Some ins and outs, but not really that complicated. But, hopefully you can see why the SYG doctrine is not applicable here, unless Zimmerman was given a chance to retreat and didn't - and with the FL SYG law, that is irrelevant, but wouldn't be in some other states.

The part where you get ridiculous is that Pinch Sulzberger is not a Jew. This diminishes the relevance of your ad hominems (which, despite your laughable plaint, are your bread and butter except you practice restraint within the room you're in, e.g., Althouse) to the point of parody, descending towards "The NYT lies because somebody there ordered a pastrami!"

The Prog-Jews thing (oh by the way cedarford, in the English language, "Jews" and its racemes are capitalized as per the rule for proper nouns, just as with "Catholics" and "Protestants." The usage as "jews" implies either an ignorance or a disrespect which, no doubt, are utterly alien to your nature, right?) is old and tired generally.

A leftish Catholic or Protestant (which IIRC is what Pinch "Shanda" Sulzberger became) would run the paper just the same as a liberal Jew, or not differently enough to matter. Or a liberal atheist.

If you disagree, C4, why?

P.S. Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath for your valid responses. Your pattern is to flee when directly and soberly confronted. Just as long as everybody else knows when you've been whipped, it doesn't matter if you admit it.

-----

Cedarford said...

Ann Althouse said... jews?!

Cedarford, stop being a a parody of yourself =================== 1. Who owns the NY Times? 2. Who sets the agenda and the various "narratives" at the NY Times - reporters must write by to remain employed - and the rest of the old media feed off of?

You cannot ignore who, in any organization, pulls the strings. Could be the Politburo, could be an owner like Bill Gates...could be the decades-long narratives and agendas the Sulzberger Family ensures the NY Times follows. 4/10/12 1:41 PM